You did. You wrote that the wise people of today will be more prominent a 100 years from now, so I asked which wise people of 100 years ago are prominent today but were not while they were alive. Support your case.
Regardless, the person obvious to me is Semmelweis. But you probably don't like that example so google "wise people who became more famous after death" and pick people yourself. I'm not going to argue about something this absurd.
Note: part of becoming more prominent is that people we now see as unwise have mostly become less prominent.
My whole point, though is this- you are just wrong- the wise people of today who are not prominent today will be unknown 100 years from now. That is how history works. If we know of them today, they were prominent when they were alive with very, very few counterexamples.
Now, you might be right that the unwise people of today who are prominent as I write this will be seen as unwise a hundred years from now or will be forgotten, but that also isn't generally true. At best, the unwise and prominent of today will be treated generously by history when they are remembered since that is what usually happens.
All in all, I find you far too naive in judging our present world, and it shows up in so many of the subjects you comment on that it becomes annoying.
Who were the unknown wise people of 100 years ago?
???
Who said anything about unknown wise people?
You did. You wrote that the wise people of today will be more prominent a 100 years from now, so I asked which wise people of 100 years ago are prominent today but were not while they were alive. Support your case.
right. I said more prominent, not unknown.
Regardless, the person obvious to me is Semmelweis. But you probably don't like that example so google "wise people who became more famous after death" and pick people yourself. I'm not going to argue about something this absurd.
Note: part of becoming more prominent is that people we now see as unwise have mostly become less prominent.
My whole point, though is this- you are just wrong- the wise people of today who are not prominent today will be unknown 100 years from now. That is how history works. If we know of them today, they were prominent when they were alive with very, very few counterexamples.
Now, you might be right that the unwise people of today who are prominent as I write this will be seen as unwise a hundred years from now or will be forgotten, but that also isn't generally true. At best, the unwise and prominent of today will be treated generously by history when they are remembered since that is what usually happens.
All in all, I find you far too naive in judging our present world, and it shows up in so many of the subjects you comment on that it becomes annoying.
We disagree.
And I think you are mistaken on naivety. I think our differences here and some past cases align more strongly with optimism-pessemism.
Ok, so who is more prominent today than they were 100 years ago?